All information in this newsletter is to the best of the authorsʼ
knowledge true and accurate. No liability is assumed by the authors, or publishers, for any losses suffered by any
person relying directly or indirectly upon this newsletter. It is recommended that clients should consult a senior
representative of the firm before acting upon this information.

Flat mate or de facto partner?

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“The Act”) provides an equal sharing presumption to
relationship property for qualifying relationships. Qualifying relationships are marriages, civil unions or de
facto
relationships that are a minimum of three years in duration.

Section 2D of the Act defines a de facto relationship as a relationship between two persons who are both aged
over 18 years, who “live together as a couple” (either heterosexual or same sex relationships) and
are
not married or in a civil union to one another.

If the parties are under the age of 18 years, the de facto relationship starts from the time the younger
partner turns 18 years old.

In determining whether two persons are “living together as a couple”, all circumstances of the de
facto relationship are to be taken into account including the matters recorded at section 2(D)(2), which
are:

The duration of the relationship.

The nature and extent of the common residence of the relationship.

Whether or not a sexual relationship exists.

The degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support, between
the parties.

The ownership, use, and acquisition of property.

The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life.

The care and support of children (either from that relationship or from previous relationships).

The performance of household duties.

The reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

None of the above factors are essential to determine whether the parties are living together as a couple and
the Court is entitled to attach such weight to any matter as is appropriate in the circumstances of that
relationship.

Marriages and Civil Unions are legal processes, which require the parties to opt in from an agreed
commencement date. However, there is no formal process that records the commencement date of de facto
relationships.
This usually leads to the parties unknowingly entering into a legally defined relationship well before they
chose to
declare their relationship (agree that their relationship is serious enough to commit to one another or tell
friends
and or family they are in a relationship) leading to the Act applying retrospectively, rather than from an
agreed
date.

This can be financially crippling to parties that may have amassed assets and property prior to the
commencement of the de facto relationship as the partner may be entitled to half the value of those asset and
property.

The ending of a de facto relationship is a question of fact and occurs either when one partner regards the
relationship as over and has communicated that intent to the other partner or one partner dies.

Parties are also able to enter into contemporaneous relationships (marriage and de facto at the same time).

A remedy available to parties is that they are able to contract out of the terms of the Act by way of s21A of
the Act. This type of agreement is called a Contracting Out Agreement or otherwise known as “pre-nup”.

If you find yourself in the above situation, gaining legal advice from a lawyer that deals with relationship
property law could save you a lot of money in the future.

Buildings and Warrants of Fitness

Many commercial and multi-residential buildings require an annual building warrant of fitness (BWOF) to prove
that the building’s safety systems have been maintained and inspected. The BWOF is obtained by the
building
owner and provided to the Council, and must be displayed in the building in a visible place at all times.

Building Warrant of Fitness

The name “Building Warrant of Fitness” can be misleading, because there is no obligation to
inspect the building as a whole, and the document makes no statement as to the fitness of the building itself.
Rather, it refers only to procedures listed in the compliance schedule that relate to specified systems in the
building.

Compliance Schedule

The Building Act 2004 (“the Act”) provides that a building other than a single household unit
requires a compliance schedule if it has one or more specified systems. This means most homes will be exempt,
but
any building that has more than one household (such as an apartment or townhouse) or any building that includes
other non-residential uses must have a compliance schedule and annual BWOF, if it contains a specified system.
The
compliance schedule will state and describe each of the specified systems, state the performance standards, and
describe the inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures to be followed in respect of each of those
specified
systems.

Specified System

A specified system is a system or feature contained in or attached to the building which contributes to the
proper functioning of the building, and has been declared by the Governor General to be a specified system for
the
purposes of the Act. Specified systems include (amongst other things): fire suppression systems (sprinklers);
automatic or manual emergency warning systems for fire or other dangers (alarms); electromagnetic automatic
doors or
windows; emergency lights; riser mains for use by fire services; lifts, escalators and travellators; air
conditioning systems; smoke control systems; cable cars; and in some circumstances that typically relate to fire
escape, they include smoke separations; fire separations; final exits and communication signs.

Independently Qualified Person

To complete the BWOF an owner will need to obtain certificates of compliance from an independently qualified
person who can certify that the inspection, maintenance, and reporting procedures stated in the compliance
schedule
have been fully complied with during the previous 12 months. Typically this will include certification that any
remedial action that may have been needed has been completed. Larger buildings may require several certificates
for
different specified systems. In addition to these annual inspections, some owners may still be required to carry
out
minor inspections that are specified to occur daily, weekly or monthly.

Penalties

For newer buildings, compliance schedules are typically issued as part of the building consent process,
however all buildings must still comply. If a building requires a compliance schedule and does not have one, the
owner could be liable for a fine up to $20,000, and further fines of $2,000 per day while that offence
continues. If
a building owner fails to obtain a required BWOF they could be liable for a fine of up to $20,000.

Finally, it is the building owner’s continuing obligation to ensure that each of the specified systems
is performing and will continue to perform.

The Ins and Outs of a Restraint of Trade Clause

Restraint of trade

The world of business is increasingly competitive. Business owners as employers have become more focussed on
securing and safeguarding information that sustains their business, such as trade secrets and profit margins.
Those
employers may consider the inclusion of a restraint of trade clause in their employment agreements as a
safeguard
against employees leaving their employment and using this sensitive information to the former employer’s
detriment.

What is a restraint of trade clause?

A restraint of trade clause is designed to protect a business’s sensitive information to which its
employees may have access. The most common conditions in restraint of trade clauses tend to prohibit or limit an
employee from working in a certain field of expertise, and/or in a designated geographical location, and/or for
a
specified period of time.

Consideration

An employer considering the inclusion of a restraint of trade clause within an individual employment agreement
is advised to consider offering the employee consideration such as an increase in wages or salary, given the
imposition the employee may face if a restraint of trade clause is sustained.

Practicalities to consider

A restraint of trade clause does not automatically protect an employer. The Courts take a careful approach
when making determinations about restraint of trade clauses, and often deem restraint of trade clauses
unenforceable
from the outset.

Where a dispute arises, the Courts examine all aspects of the restraint of trade clause, paying particular
attention to whether the conditions are reasonable in order to protect the employer’s interests, relative
consideration or compensation, as well as the reasonableness and practicality of the conditions imposed upon the
employee.

The Courts may consider the following factors when considering the enforceability of a restraint of trade
clause:

Whether the former employer has a proprietary interest that is capable of being protected; (for example,
did the employee have access to confidential information or having built up a strong customer/client/supplier
relationships);

Whether it is reasonable to restrict the employee’s employment options/activities;

Whether period of the restraint is reasonable;

Whether the geographical limits of the restraint are reasonable.

Before considering inclusion of a restraint of trade clause it is vital to understand what is the interest or
the purpose of the restraint of trade clause; what reasonable parameters may be imposed in order to achieve that
purpose; and in return whether fair consideration or compensation been offered to the employee.

Restraint of trade clauses can be very beneficial for employers, especially if a business is reliant on
securing and safeguarding its interests critical to the successful running of the business. It is essential to
understand all aspects of a restraint of trade clause before relying on one to protect your business, as finding
the
right balance in a restraint of trade clause is vital to ensure that it is enforceable. We are available to help
draft and discuss such terms.

Citizen’s Arrest: An overview

Ordinary citizens have a limited ability to make an arrest; however, their powers are not as wide as you may
think. This article will interest security contractors, business owners and anyone else who might find
themselves in
the position where they might need to react to a crime.

Technically you only have the actual right to make an arrest if you have been asked to assist someone else who
is performing a legal arrest (such as a Police Constable or Fisheries Officer) (s 316 Crimes Act 1961). As an
ordinary citizen, you are however given limited protection in some circumstances if you do make an arrest (s
35-38
Crimes Act 1961). This means that although you do not usually have a right to arrest, you might be protected
from
criminal responsibility if you do so.

Section 35 gives protection where you arrest a person who you actually find engaged in a criminal offence
at night. If you find them by day you are protected only if the offence carries a maximum punishment of three
or
more years imprisonment. For these purposes ‘Night’ means between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Section 36 does not require you to actually find an offender in the act. Protection is given if you arrest
a person that you honestly and reasonably believe to be committing a criminal offence at night.

Section 37 overlaps, but is somewhat limited. Protection is given where you arrest a person that you
honestly and reasonably believe already has committed a criminal offence (by day or by night), so long as the
offence actually occurred, even if it was not the person who you arrested that committed the offence.

Finally, section 38 provides protection during flight, if you arrest somebody that you honestly and
reasonably believe committed a criminal offence and is escaping from and being pursued by someone else whom
you
reasonably believe has an authority to arrest the offender.

In all cases you must have an intention to make prompt contact with the Police in order to set in motion the
processes of prosecution.

It is important to note that protection is only granted for an arrest relating to a criminal offence, meaning
an offence under the Crimes Act 1961 (such as murder, burglary, assault or home invasion). Protection is not
granted
for other offences, such as those which may be covered by the Summary Offences Act 1981 (such as disorderly
behaviour, graffiti and tagging or indecent exposure) or traffic offences, which are covered by the Land
Transport
Act 1998 (such as dangerous or careless driving).

To actually arrest someone, you need only make it clear of your intention to apprehend. Physical contact or
restraint is not a legal requirement to make an arrest, but may become necessary in some circumstances. If so,
the
Crimes Act provides you with some protection against the use of reasonable force if, and only if, your arrest is
justified.

If you get it wrong there is the potential to face criminal charges for assault or kidnapping or civil action
for false imprisonment.

When buying or leasing valuable goods it is important to check that they are not subject to a security
interest. Otherwise, the secured party is able to use its security interest to call in the goods you purchased
or
leased, to repay the debt they are owed.

However, the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (“the Act”) provides some protection. One
situation where a purchaser is protected is if you are dealing with a seller or lessor in the ordinary course of
their business. For the purposes of this article, seller means both a seller and a lessor.

Section 53 of the Act provides that when you buy or lease goods that have been sold or leased in the ordinary
course of business of the seller, you take those goods free of any security interest.

This exception does not apply if you know that the transaction will be in breach of an existing security
agreement, or where the security interest was granted by a person other than the current seller.

By way of example, this exemption can apply when purchasing a vehicle from a dealer. The vehicles for sale
will often be subject to a security interest in favour of a third party (perhaps the vehicle’s former
owner
or the dealer’s bank), and the dealer clearly sells vehicles in the ordinary course of their business. If
you
were to buy a vehicle from the dealer you would therefore usually receive the vehicle free of the third
party’s security interest, even if that interest had not been discharged as part of the sale. In contrast
to
this, if you buy the vehicle from a private seller via Trademe without first ensuring that all security
interests
have been discharged, the security holder could recover that vehicle from you to repay any debt still owed by
the
private seller – even if you paid for the vehicle in full.

Whether a sale or lease is ‘in the ordinary course of the seller’s business’ depends on
the
facts of each situation. Some common factors the Courts consider include whether the transaction took place at
the
seller’s business premises, and the quantity and price of the goods sold or leased. This means for
example
that if you are buying from a car dealer, but the vehicle you buy is bought at a remote place unrelated to the
dealership, and for less than market value, the transaction might not be considered as part of the seller’s
ordinary course of business and this exemption may not apply.

We recommend you search the Personal Property Securities Register to determine whether there are any
registered security interests that relate to the property you are buying. If there is an interest registered,
you
should carefully consider whether you are protected by the “ordinary course of business” exemption,
and
if not, you should take steps to ensure that the security interest is discharged before you part with your
cash.

Snippets

Reform – Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“the Act”) came into force on 4 April 2016. This Act has
significant implications for workers and business owners alike, reforming New Zealand’s health and safety
system.

The Act introduces the concept of a “person conducting a business or undertaking”
(“PCBU”) and sets out a wide range of PCBU obligations – it is important to note that the
PCBU
concept also applies to entities running businesses, such as companies. The Act also imposes a positive duty on
officers of a PCBU (for example a director of a company or partner in a partnership) to exercise due diligence
in
ensuring compliance with health and safety regulations, failing which, officers can be personally liable.

For workers, there is an increased emphasis on worker participation and consultation with PCBUs, as well as an
obligation on workers to take reasonable care for their own health and safety and not to affect the health and
safety of others.

Property Purchase – Meth testing

Methamphetamine contamination has been described as being so prevalent that it could be worse than the leaky
home crisis that affected New Zealand in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Ministry of Health guidelines do not identify any safe level of methamphetamine contamination, and guidelines
around the world vary. In New Zealand, decontamination is recommended if 0.5 micrograms (0.0005g) are detected
in
one 10cm by 10cm area. If detected, your local Council has powers under the Health Act 1956 to order cleansing
of
the property and could place a permanent requisition on your property file.

The chemicals used to cook Methamphetamine and the residue from its use can be highly toxic and can linger for
a long time after being absorbed into housing materials. Health risks include burns, respiratory and
neurological
damage. Decontamination can require complete redecoration to the affected area, including replacement of
carpets,
curtains, and wall linings.

If you have any questions about the newsletter items, please Contact Us, we are here to help.